Was Jesus a false prophet?

[DivineNames]

True faith leaves no doubt, so what difference does it make?

The difference is in whether something is actually true, or whether certain people merely believe it to be true. It's an important difference.

 

[Kefka]

True faith leaves no doubt, so what difference does it make?

The difference is in whether something is actually true, or whether certain people merely believe it to be true. It's an important difference.

Perhaps, but if there's no doubt in my mind, I know it to be true.

 

[antitox]

True faith leaves no doubt, so what difference does it make?

The difference is in whether something is actually true, or whether certain people merely believe it to be true. It's an important difference.

It takes just as much doubt to believe something false as it does faith to believe something true in such a case as this.
You challenge us with doubt, we challenge you with faith, based upon the Divine Lord behind our existence that the bible speaks of.

You do not read the bible without bias. You are biased against it. You are biased toward non-existence of God. We are biased in favor to it. THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a "neutral" or "objective" position in this.

 

[DivineNames]

It takes just as much doubt to believe something false as it does faith to believe something true in such a case as this.

Could someone interpret?

You challenge us with doubt, we challenge you with faith

I challenge you with the plain words of the Bible.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a neutral or objective position in this.

Lets assume that I have a certain bias as a skeptic. That wouldn't prevent me from looking at particular issues in the Bible relatively free from prejudice. An issue like this is of major importance to your religious beliefs, but it is of very little importance to my skepticism. There is no reason why I can't look at the issue, "objectively". I doubt you can say the same.

 

[antitox]

I challenge you with the plain words of the Bible.

Sounds good to me:

(1 Cor 2:12) "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God. And we impart this in words not taught by hunan wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit."

(2 Pet 1:20) "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation. because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Now those scriptures show that you won't be able to properly assimilate any of this without having the Spirit of God in your life. You are operating under the impulse of man, not God.

Lets assume that I have a certain bias as a skeptic. That wouldn't prevent me from looking at particular issues in the Bible relatively free from prejudice. An issue like this is of major importance to your religious beliefs, but it is of very little importance to my skepticism. There is no reason why I can't look at the issue, "objectively". I doubt you can say the same.

See above reply.

 

[Kefka]

Lets assume that I have a certain bias as a skeptic. That wouldn't prevent me from looking at particular issues in the Bible relatively free from prejudice. An issue like this is of major importance to your religious beliefs, but it is of very little importance to my skepticism. There is no reason why I can't look at the issue, "objectively". I doubt you can say the same.

If you're a skeptic, and yet you're studying these bible verses... it shows that you study them looking to find proof that Jesus was a false prophet. Why else would you study the bible if you are a skeptic? So how is that from an unbiased point of view?

 

[DivineNames]

I challenge you with the plain words of the Bible.

Sounds good to me:

(1 Cor 2:12) "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God. And we impart this in words not taught by hunan wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit."

(2 Pet 1:20) "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation. because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Now those scriptures show that you won't be able to properly assimilate any of this without having the Spirit of God in your life. You are operating under the impulse of man, not God.

Firstly, the verses really don't look that relevant. Jesus gives a clear prophecy. I don't need the "Holy Spirit" to be able to understand it. Neither does anyone else. And as it happens, there are a number of Christians who agree with my interpretation of those verses.

Secondly, you are rather assuming that these are inspired people, with inspired prophecies, which is the issue at stake. Please try to avoid circular argument.

The New Testament claims to follow on from the Old Testament. Remember that the gospel writers appealed to Old Testament "prophecy" to support their claim of the significance of Jesus. It is the O.T. that has priority-

You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:21-22 NIV)

Where someone claims to speak for God, as in the case of Jesus, the Old Testament provides a simple criteria by which we can judge the truth of that claim. If their prophecies do not come true, then they aren't speaking for God. A couple of points can be made-

(1) Jesus did know, or should have known, that those who claim to speak for God are tested on this criteria. It is his responsibility to make his prophecies clear and easily understandable, (to everyone), so that he can be tested on this point. (In the example we are considering, Jesus did give a clear prophecy as I have already said, but some of you apparently want to contest this.)

(2) When someone claims to speak for God, we aren't told in the Old Testament to have faith that they are genuine. We are told that false prophets exist, and we are given a simple criteria by which we can test them.

Please tell me, where does it say in the O.T. that you should have faith that someone hasn't given a false prophecy?

 

[antitox]

Firstly, the verses really don't look that relevant. Jesus gives a clear prophecy.

They are biblical, relevant, and they apply. You are on a Christian board.

I don't need the "Holy Spirit" to be able to understand it.

The bible says that you do, and it is obvious.

Neither does anyone else. And as it happens, there are a number of Christians who agree with my interpretation of those verses.

You do not understand alot of what the bible says, maybe pieces or parts here and there, but you do not know the intent, the scope of what God is doing, and you miss alot of what it says and Christians often have to correct you on this board. And you just go on ignoring it same-o same-o.

Secondly, you are rather assuming that these are inspired people, with inspired prophecies, which is the issue at stake. Please try to avoid circular argument.

How bout acknowledging the truths about what it says? I showed you some scriptures and you ignore them, and keep going on insisting that you can interpret the bible. You are closed to it, you don't care, and you continue attempting to find holes in it.

The New Testament claims to follow on from the Old Testament. Remember that the gospel writers appealed to Old Testament "prophecy" to support their claim of the significance of Jesus. It is the O.T. that has priority-

[quote:3a9ff]
You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:21-22 NIV)

Where someone claims to speak for God, as in the case of Jesus, the Old Testament provides a simple criteria by which we can judge the truth of that claim. If their prophecies do not come true, then they aren't speaking for God.[/quote:3a9ff]

It has been pointed out what he was saying. What is it that you can't understand?

A couple of points can be made-

(1) Jesus did know, or should have known, that those who claim to speak for God are tested on this criteria. It is his responsibility to make his prophecies clear and easily understandable, (to everyone), so that he can be tested on this point. (In the example we are considering, Jesus did give a clear prophecy as I have already said, but some of you apparently want to contest this.)

(2) When someone claims to speak for God, we aren't told in the Old Testament to have faith that they are genuine. We are told that false prophets exist, and we are given a simple criteria by which we can test them.

Please tell me, where does it say in the O.T. that you should have faith that someone hasn't given a false prophecy?

See above.

 

[Rick W]

Christ wasn't a prophet in the first place but the Messiah. Christ's diety alone means He cannot lie but speaks truth in ALL things.

Prove he's the Messiah and proving Him as a prophet becomes a moot point. And I do believe the bible is quite clear that Jesus is indeed The Son.

 

[DivineNames]

Lets assume that I have a certain bias as a skeptic. That wouldn't prevent me from looking at particular issues in the Bible relatively free from prejudice. An issue like this is of major importance to your religious beliefs, but it is of very little importance to my skepticism. There is no reason why I can't look at the issue, "objectively". I doubt you can say the same.

If you're a skeptic, and yet you're studying these bible verses... it shows that you study them looking to find proof that Jesus was a false prophet. Why else would you study the bible if you are a skeptic? So how is that from an unbiased point of view?

I will try to explain this with an example. Imagine a biblical inerrantist, every single claim of error in the Bible threatens their belief system. Now imagine a skeptic, if a particular alleged "Bible contradiction" can be well explained by the Christian, it really does very little to threaten the skeptic's outlook. So perhaps the skeptic could look at a particular verse far more objectively?

 

[Rick W]

We posted the same time.
Check my post above yours DivineNames.

If He wasn't the Messiah then proving he was a prophet AND a false prophet at that may be debated. But He was not therefore Christ cannot be a false prophet.
Can God lie?
no

 

[DivineNames]

Christ wasn't a prophet in the first place but the Messiah. Christ's diety alone means He cannot lie but speaks truth in ALL things.

Prove he's the Messiah and proving Him as a prophet becomes a moot point. And I do believe the bible is quite clear that Jesus is indeed The Son.

Jesus claimed to be a prophet-

But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor." (Matthew 13:57 NIV)

I am well aware of what is claimed about Jesus. If he also claimed to be the Messiah, or other people claimed that he was the Messiah, it doesn't change the fact that Jesus claimed to be a prophet. And even if he didn't say he was a prophet, if he was claiming to speak for God then he should be tested on the criteria the O.T. provides.

Jesus was never properly anointed, and he didn't have Davidic descent, (because he was without a human father), and he didn't fulfill genuine Messianic prophecies, so he is unlikely to qualify as the Messiah.

Your point about Jesus being God, so he wasn't able to lie, is just silly in the context of this discussion.

 

[DivineNames]

It has been pointed out what he was saying. What is it that you can't understand?

Certain Christians here have suggested that Jesus meant that a particular generation in the future would witness all of the events within the space of their lifetimes.

I can understand that point, but I don't think it is true. None of those Christians have (so far) answered the points I put to them. Can you answer those points antitox?

 

[DivineNames]

How bout acknowledging the truths about what it says? I showed you some scriptures and you ignore them, and keep going on insisting that you can interpret the bible. You are closed to it, you don't care, and you continue attempting to find holes in it.

I think it is actually you that is blind to what the Bible says, for obvious reasons. With regard to the verses that you cited, I am not interested in some silly circular argument which assumes the issue at stake.

 

[Rick W]

Jesus claimed to be a prophet-

But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor." (Matthew 13:57 NIV)

Was he making an illustrative point or claiming to be a prophet?

Was Christ the Messiah or was He a prophet? If He was The Messiah then His word is true.

What do you think?
Messiah or prophet?

 

[antitox]

How bout acknowledging the truths about what it says? I showed you some scriptures and you ignore them, and keep going on insisting that you can interpret the bible. You are closed to it, you don't care, and you continue attempting to find holes in it.

I think it is actually you that is blind to what the Bible says, for obvious reasons. With regard to the verses that you cited, I am not interested in some silly circular argument which assumes the issue at stake.

Well I happen to believe what the bible says. You don't, therefore what we say means nothing to you and though we understand it well, you seek ways to continue in your anti-God claims even though rational truth is presented.

 

[antitox]

It has been pointed out what he was saying. What is it that you can't understand?

Certain Christians here have suggested that Jesus meant that a particular generation in the future would witness all of the events within the space of their lifetimes.

I can understand that point, but I don't think it is true. None of those Christians have (so far) answered the points I put to them. Can you answer those points antitox?

When Jesus speaks of "this generation," he is referring to the generation at the time of the fulfillment of the prophecy. The bible is clear. It couldn't be in his time because much of the prophecies spoken refer to generations ahead as well.

So what points?

 

[DivineNames]

It couldn't be in his time because much of the prophecies spoken refer to generations ahead as well.

What? Could you explain this please.

 

[DivineNames]

When Jesus speaks of "this generation," he is referring to the generation at the time of the fulfillment of the prophecy.

What you are saying isn't true-

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28 NIV)

(Also- Mark 8:38-9:1 and Luke 9:26-27)

It says, "some who are standing here", this shows that Jesus is talking about the generation alive at the time he was speaking.

Even if your interpretation was correct, the events would still be fixed in the first century, as that is when one of the events occurred, (destruction of the Second Temple).

And if the events are yet to happen- In Israel, in the future, do you really think that Christians are going to be flogged in the synagogues? (Mark 13:9 NIV) Are Christians really going to flee from city to city?

And also-

The Greek word outos, for example, from which aute was derived in the disputed text, was a word that meant this but apparently in a much more immediate sense than the English this. Although this in English can, and often does, mean that which is immediate or near, it doesn't have to. Arndt and Gingrich, on the other hand, define outos as "referring to someth[ing] comparatively near at hand, just as echeinos refers to someth[ing] comparatively farther away" (A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 1957, p. 600).

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazin ... 4wrap.html

The Greek text (apparently) supports the interpretation that Jesus was talking about, "this present generation".

 

[Gary]

LOL... yeah, let "infidels.org" do your Bible interpretation!! ... and Farrell Till in particular. He is a REAL joke.... the best case against atheism is his stupidity. How funny!

He (Farrell Till) hasn't an ounce of scholarly credit, but the minute he opens a Bible or any other book, he's an expert. Here's a year-by-year rebuttal to The Skeptical Review.

http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tsrpages.html

Enjoy!

He is worth reading IF you have run out of comics (the paper kind).